Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3944930)

it’s definitely out there. POTUS just appointed a representative to ICAO who is a recently retired DL CA and age 67 advocate. Then there is congressman Nehls from Texas who has a brother who is a double digit seniority number WB CA. Rep. Nehls is a big supporter of the current administration.

remember, any tweaks would have to be in line with federal age discrimination laws. If the FAA raises the age, there isn’t a whole lot DL or ALPA can do that would be both legal and only affect those over 65. that is, unless a federal law explicitly allows it.

for example we cannot have our LTD end at a certain age. Any cuts to LTD would have to affect a 35 year old and a 65 year old equally.

same with having your seniority reset at a certain age. Not legal.

Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey (Post 3944966)

If you think our LTD will not be affected by Age 67…

Our current policy will change and that will hurt everyone up and down the seniority list.

It’s a massive cost and it’s gonna come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3944973)

we have improved LTD since age 65. I’ve said before I don’t think 67 would break our LTD, but that’s just my opinion.

my point wasn’t that our LTD would be fine or not, even though I think it would be. My point was DL/ALPA cannot change LTD to make it worse for those 65+. For example we cannot implement an age cap for LTD benefits.

our policy only changes if we vote in a change. As of right now DL owes us LTD until FAA mandatory retirement age. If the age changes that’s a DL problem.

Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey (Post 3944977)

And what are we willing to give up for that?

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3944979)

we already have LTD that goes to FAA mandatory retirement age, regardless of what that age is. Why would we have to give something up for an item we already successfully negotiated.

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 3944979)

we already have LTD that goes to FAA mandatory retirement age, regardless of what that age is. Why would we have to give something up for an item we already successfully negotiated.

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3944987)

Those making that argument believe the company will be less willing/able to put money in other parts of the contract, because they know those costs to the penny. So it will be an indirect impact.

In effect, it will rob other parts of future contract gains to 'fund' the increase in LTD payments.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3944997)

IATA is the one pushing the Europeans. So the airlines are behind this. I guess it could be an outside the U.S. initiative because they see staffing as an issue but here at home it seems to be cooling. With Spirit soon contributing to pilots being available I don't see our airlines as wanting it, but maybe? <shrug>

https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...67-2025-08-28/

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3944987)

Those making that argument believe the company will be less willing/able to put money in other parts of the contract, because they know those costs to the penny. So it will be an indirect impact.

In effect, it will rob other parts of future contract gains to 'fund' the increase in LTD payments.

Originally Posted by Uninteresting (Post 3945040)

how again is that fair?